Obama Won’t Enforce Cruz Law Barring Iranian Terrorist from US

Ted Cruz

How utterly unsurprising. I predicted that this is what would happen.

President Obama on Friday signed into law a bill authored by Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz that would bar an Iranian diplomat from entering the United States, but immediately issued a statement saying he won’t enforce it.

Obama decided to treat the law as mere advice. “Acts of espionage and terrorism against the United States and our allies are unquestionably problems of the utmost gravity, and I share the Congress’s concern that individuals who have engaged in such activity may use the cover of diplomacy to gain access to our Nation,” Obama said in his signing statement.

“It is unconscionable that, in the name of international diplomatic protocol, the United States would be forced to host a foreign national who showed a brutal disregard for the status of our diplomats when they were stationed in his country,” Cruz said when he introduced the bill.

The legislation was directed at Hamid Abutalebi, whom Iranian President Hassan Rouhani tapped as U.N. ambassador, because of his alleged role in the 1979 student takeover of the U.S. Embassy.

The US and Iran are playing a strange game over this appointment in which Obama tries to dissuade Iran without taking too strong a stance while Iran figures it can humiliate him into accepting their terrorist ambassador.

And given Obama’s track record, Iran is probably right.

  • tagfu222

    Ted on Hobama enforcing the law.

  • USARetired

    Way past time to remove the obstacle from office. O’Bozo has set this nation back 20 years!

  • A Z

    For 5 or 6 years Obama has appeasing Russia. It has not worked. So Obama & company have stopped appeasing (more or less) Russia bout 2 months ago.

    So why is Obama appeasing Iran? Is he mental?

    “What’s actually happened is that circumstances have forced Obama to admit that the foreign policy he has pursued for the last six years towards Russia, a policy of appeasement, has crashed and burned. ”

    “Tefft’s appointment is a direct poke in the eye of Putin, and there’s no mistaking it.”


    • objectivefactsmatter

      I don’t think POTUS has any problem with Russia’s rising power. Truly his idea of serving America’s interests is to stop defending America’s interests. Defense just perpetuates the cycle of violence you know.

      He’s the first neo-Marxist POTUS, unless you count Clinton and or Carter, but I’m not as certain about the earlier idiots. Nobody can question 0’Bama’s Marxist credentials except from a perspective of absolute ignorance.

      • bob smith

        and given those credentials which were finely tuned by his mentors, those same mentors who stole a myriad of ideas from the very pages of the Marxist books Putin was weaned on as a USSR comrade. Putin can read the idiot ‘literally’ like a book.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          No doubt.

    • truebearing

      Don’t make the mistake of assuming that Obama’s objectives are the same as ours. Where we see failures, he sees victories. Try this little exercise and see how it comes out: name one thing Obama has done that clearly strengthens America. This is much faster than listing the endless number of things he’s done to hurt America, but go ahead and do both. When the column of “hurts America” dwarfs the goose egg of “helps America” you know you’ve identified an enemy of America.

  • http://grumpyelder.com/ Grumpy

    Let me make sure I’ve got this straight, since there were probably enough votes to over-ride a veto, Obama decided to sign and ignore it..?

    Is Article II Section 3 still part of the Constitution, or did Obama use his pen and phone to unilaterally delete it?

  • truebearing

    If you want your law, you can have your law, but I won’t enforce it.

    • bob smith

      sorry to correct you…the clown took the oath three times…we just were not privy to the re-swearing of the repeated oath as it was done in seclusion. therefore we can’t be sure of what he swore to, if anything. how’s that for transparency?

      • truebearing

        He may have sworn to a different oath away from the cameras, but he swore the presidential oath in public twice, and I challenge anyone to find evidence that he has honored it even once.

    • Bryan Schmick

      Defending the right of the Muslims to build a mosque near the NY 9/11 site. While I disagree with the concept, the first amendment is part of the constitution. I’ll accept part of that 1 trillion thank you. It can also be argued that pres Obama’s decision to ignore DOMA was an act to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution (even though it was against another part of the constitution to faithfully uphold laws.

      p.s. a google search on Obama defend constitution returned over 11 million hits, but I only had the strength to look at the first 40. The ratio was 2 to 38 against.

      • truebearing

        Muslims are enemies to the constitution and America. Islam is an avowed enemy to democracy, Christianity, Judaisim, capitalim, etc. They want to destroy our culture and replace it with Islam. Hostile enemies aren’t protected under the 1st amendment. They are run out on a rail for sedition, or at least that was the intent of the framers. They certainly didn’t write the constitution so it could be used against itself by those intent on destroying it.

        • Bryan Schmick

          Sorry. I missed the article of the constitution (or amendment) that said the religious order known as Islam is not protected under the constitution (or the first amendment). When can I expect a paycheck on the first installment of that 1 trillion?

  • john powers

    I will vote for Ted Cruz and I voted for Obama twice and have never voted Republican in my life, but I did not sign up for what Obama and the democratic has done, and is trying to do, to this country. Enough is enought.

    • kilfincelt

      Obama came out of the Chicago Democratic political machine which should have told voters all they needed to know about him. I had a neighbor that absolutely refused to vote for him for that reason. I didn’t vote for him either but that was because I really didn’t know for what he stood. I didn’t buy into the hope and change slogan. I live near Chicago so I am fully cognizant of what goes on there.

    • Bryan Schmick

      Yes, you did sign up for it. Twice. The first time might be forgivable since the Republicans were running a weak, media approved candidate and then Senator Obama had no real history or experience. A crapshoot at best. The second time, after all the failures in the first term, against a person with a strong economical background isn’t. What it breaks down to is that you did sign up for it because you didn’t care to do any research other than listen to what the liberal media told you. What did you find inspiring about Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, and Carter?

  • catherineinpvb

    Is protecting this Country – to best of one’s ability – NOT a job requirement of a sitting President? Impeach this traitor – who by his ‘lights'; should by now; be already, long gone.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      H’e protecting it by playing possum. In theory.

      See Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.